Driver to drive?

[Jon Kirwan]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:08:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:13:30 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?

I use ISI JCR journal articles, not you or your opinions. Why should
I care about what you say?

But I insist that before I take a single step in any direction you
point, that you first take a crack at your own earlier comments and
see how they hold up. Do some of your own work. Even you should know
better than to completely walk away from your own statements. In the
meantime, I'll probably just keep reminding you if I bother at all.

Jon

It is a religion with you

If it's not in the bible (ISI JCR) then it's not true.

When you must hide in a dark corner of superstition and call ISI JCR
rated journals biblical, it pretty much defines you -- not me. Science
is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant of
it. You are just unable to discern, which is your problem not mine.

If you won't look at the facts then there is no hope for you.

But that's _your_ problem, not time. You are just projecting your own
flaws. I do, you don't.

Worse, you won't even attempt to evaluate your own idiotic comments
and defend them. Which is a discerning earmark of a crackpot. Go
back and attempt to evaluate your own earlier silly point, for once.
If you can't even do that, I've no idea why anyone should care what
you say.

Jon

 

[krw]

In article <POydnUFLiN8pHCfUnZ2dnUVZ_gWWnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...>

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.


As always, Sloman has to blame someone else for his failings. On the
other hand, no one could accept all of his failings without going
insane.

....and your point is?

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 +0000, Jon Kirwan wrote:

study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Another tactic of the True Believer - accuse your foe of doing exactly
what you're doing.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw wrote:

In article <POydnUFLiN8pHCfUnZ2dnUVZ_gWWnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.


As always, Sloman has to blame someone else for his failings. On the
other hand, no one could accept all of his failings without going
insane.

...and your point is?

That he never changes?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I
will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:02:54 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:08:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:13:30 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?

I use ISI JCR journal articles, not you or your opinions. Why should
I care about what you say?

But I insist that before I take a single step in any direction you
point, that you first take a crack at your own earlier comments and
see how they hold up. Do some of your own work. Even you should know
better than to completely walk away from your own statements. In the
meantime, I'll probably just keep reminding you if I bother at all.

Jon

It is a religion with you

If it's not in the bible (ISI JCR) then it's not true.

When you must hide in a dark corner of superstition and call ISI JCR
rated journals biblical, it pretty much defines you -- not me. Science
is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant of
it. You are just unable to discern, which is your problem not mine.

If you won't look at the facts then there is no hope for you.

But that's _your_ problem, not time. You are just projecting your own
flaws. I do, you don't.

Worse, you won't even attempt to evaluate your own idiotic comments
and defend them. Which is a discerning earmark of a crackpot. Go
back and attempt to evaluate your own earlier silly point, for once.
If you can't even do that, I've no idea why anyone should care what
you say.

Jon

A back of the fag packet calculation shows a 1000 metre drop in the
tropopause will reduce the surface area of the troposhere by about
0.015%. Small but not negligable when you consider that the
temperature anomaly peaked at about 0.15%.

At the moment I haven't found data on variation of tropopause or
stratopause heights with time. So I haven't a clue if 1000 metres is a
reasonable starting point.

 

[krw]

In article <ddydnSSZ_4ZhOifUnZ2dnUVZ_uWcnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...>

krw wrote:

In article <POydnUFLiN8pHCfUnZ2dnUVZ_gWWnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.


As always, Sloman has to blame someone else for his failings. On the
other hand, no one could accept all of his failings without going
insane.

...and your point is?


That he never changes?

He's always been insane. Why would accepting his failings have
anything to do with it?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw wrote:

In article <ddydnSSZ_4ZhOifUnZ2dnUVZ_uWcnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
krw wrote:

In article <POydnUFLiN8pHCfUnZ2dnUVZ_gWWnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
mike.terrell@earthlink.net says...
John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.


As always, Sloman has to blame someone else for his failings. On the
other hand, no one could accept all of his failings without going
insane.

...and your point is?


That he never changes?

He's always been insane. Why would accepting his failings have
anything to do with it?

The insane never accept the truth?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I
will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:45:48 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:02:54 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:08:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:13:30 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?

I use ISI JCR journal articles, not you or your opinions. Why should
I care about what you say?

But I insist that before I take a single step in any direction you
point, that you first take a crack at your own earlier comments and
see how they hold up. Do some of your own work. Even you should know
better than to completely walk away from your own statements. In the
meantime, I'll probably just keep reminding you if I bother at all.

Jon

It is a religion with you

If it's not in the bible (ISI JCR) then it's not true.

When you must hide in a dark corner of superstition and call ISI JCR
rated journals biblical, it pretty much defines you -- not me. Science
is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant of
it. You are just unable to discern, which is your problem not mine.

If you won't look at the facts then there is no hope for you.

But that's _your_ problem, not time. You are just projecting your own
flaws. I do, you don't.

Worse, you won't even attempt to evaluate your own idiotic comments
and defend them. Which is a discerning earmark of a crackpot. Go
back and attempt to evaluate your own earlier silly point, for once.
If you can't even do that, I've no idea why anyone should care what
you say.

Jon

A back of the fag packet calculation shows a 1000 metre drop in the
tropopause will reduce the surface area of the troposhere by about
0.015%. Small but not negligable when you consider that the
temperature anomaly peaked at about 0.15%.

At the moment I haven't found data on variation of tropopause or
stratopause heights with time. So I haven't a clue if 1000 metres is a
reasonable starting point.

This is the part you need to track down, first. You proposed the idea
without a clue in hand. Now it is time to pony up and find out what
the data says is likely, or else find well-understood theory that you
argue may apply here and apply it to this circumstance (deduce to it
cases, in other words.) Then go back and rework your figures and
expose the calculations you used to view.

Jon

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:40:26 GMT, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:45:48 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:02:54 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:08:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:13:30 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?

I use ISI JCR journal articles, not you or your opinions. Why should
I care about what you say?

But I insist that before I take a single step in any direction you
point, that you first take a crack at your own earlier comments and
see how they hold up. Do some of your own work. Even you should know
better than to completely walk away from your own statements. In the
meantime, I'll probably just keep reminding you if I bother at all.

Jon

It is a religion with you

If it's not in the bible (ISI JCR) then it's not true.

When you must hide in a dark corner of superstition and call ISI JCR
rated journals biblical, it pretty much defines you -- not me. Science
is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant of
it. You are just unable to discern, which is your problem not mine.

If you won't look at the facts then there is no hope for you.

But that's _your_ problem, not time. You are just projecting your own
flaws. I do, you don't.

Worse, you won't even attempt to evaluate your own idiotic comments
and defend them. Which is a discerning earmark of a crackpot. Go
back and attempt to evaluate your own earlier silly point, for once.
If you can't even do that, I've no idea why anyone should care what
you say.

Jon

A back of the fag packet calculation shows a 1000 metre drop in the
tropopause will reduce the surface area of the troposhere by about
0.015%. Small but not negligable when you consider that the
temperature anomaly peaked at about 0.15%.

At the moment I haven't found data on variation of tropopause or
stratopause heights with time. So I haven't a clue if 1000 metres is a
reasonable starting point.

This is the part you need to track down, first. You proposed the idea
without a clue in hand. Now it is time to pony up and find out what
the data says is likely, or else find well-understood theory that you
argue may apply here and apply it to this circumstance (deduce to it
cases, in other words.) Then go back and rework your figures and
expose the calculations you used to view.

Jon

I don't expect to find useful data. After all the tropopause varies
dramatically with latitude so unless there is some global satellite
data for it then any figure is pretty meaningless. However if I do
find the information I'll let you know.

 

On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

No, she didn't write it. Some time ago she was talking about the way
some genetically challenged people (not the Fox2p gene, which affects
speech production) have trouble with complicated sentence structures,
so I tested you with a sentence containing an inferred object, and it
seems that you couldn't parse it.

I may - of course - have misunderstood what she was saying, but I do
seem to have come up with a sentence that your brain isn't equipped to
parse - your push-down stack would seem to be inadequate.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 13, 4:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

   As always, Sloman has to blame someone else for his failings.  On the
other hand, no one could accept all of his failings without going
insane.

I take advantage of something my wife said to successfully trip up
John Fields, and I've

a) failed?

and

b) blamed someone else for my "failure"?

I know Michael A. Terrell is a Jim Thompson groupy, but he may have
surpassed the master when it comes to being out of touch with reality.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Richard The Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Of course they can't! They haven't got any!

Every time I've said, "I'll grant your model a little credibility when
you show me one that accounts for water," they clam up.

Or start name-calling. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

On Mar 13, 11:41 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:00:25 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:05 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde

raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

                                       ...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right.  Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation.  To them, it sounds
just fine.  Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study.  It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

AGW is a faith-based social society.

Jim and Rich Grise both seem to have received this same revelation.
If they had the wit, or the skills to dig into the scientifc case for
anthropogenic global warming, they'd have a different opinion, but
they have the sort of faith in their opinions that can ignore ice-core
data.

You have to keep science out of it.

Raving cherry-picks his scientific "facts". He doesn't seem to notice
that the temperature rise over the last century hasn't been smooth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

and includes a number of episodes of short term cooling that look very
like the current example, and consequently feels free to claim
"Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change
asclaimed. Check." Since no climatologist was ever silly enough to
claim that CO2 did overide other causes of (short term) temperature
change he's actually just set up a straw man.

I note you are using an out of date secondary source.

For a more up to date picture try:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

Which has seen the anomaly cut from 0.5C to 0.3C.

Since I was talking about short term noise superimposed on a long term
trend, both your sources provide exactly the same support for the
point I was making.

Add to this the guy from NOAA predicting cooling for another 30 years.

Presumably you are misquoting Kyle Swanson - again. As I pointed out
tp you last time, what he actually said was that the short term
cooling could extend for as long as thirty years.

In fact he seems to think that a few years is more likely.

You aren't the only mendacious creep who goes in for this kind of
selective misquotation

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/category/the-george-will-on-ice-affair/

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

No, she didn't write it. Some time ago she was talking about the way
some genetically challenged people (not the Fox2p gene, which affects
speech production) have trouble with complicated sentence structures,
so I tested you with a sentence containing an inferred object, and it
seems that you couldn't parse it.

I may - of course - have misunderstood what she was saying, but I do
seem to have come up with a sentence that your brain isn't equipped to
parse - your push-down stack would seem to be inadequate.

Can you reference an article on this subject? Ask her if she might be
willing to provide a pointer? Sounds helpful in understanding some
folks.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:10:33 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:40:26 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:45:48 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:02:54 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:08:38 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:13:30 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:22:52 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:28:00 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:20:36 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:56:01 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:53:15 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:08:14 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:09:40 +0000, Raveninghorde
raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:04:55 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:16:59 GMT, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

[snip]

Isn't it nice how Raving's ignorance makes all challenges seem
reasonable in his mind?

Jon

As a leftist weenie spewing gloom and doom, don't you think it
appropriate for you to set your affairs in order, write your will,
etc., for the sky is indeed falling... CHICKEN LITTLE

...Jim Thompson

Jim, you're wrong

The sky is falling. That's one of the factors NASA want to
investigate. Jon won't believe it because it's a sign of global
cooling.

I see you still aren't capable of even checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

The hottest year was 1998. Warming peaked in 2004 according to hadcrut
and we are on a cooling trend. Check.

Conclusion, CO2 does not overide other causes of temperature change as
claimed. Check.

So which bit of my logic can't you follow? I'll try and make it
simpler for you to understand.

Not to repeat myself, but I still see you still aren't capable of even
checking out your own ideas.

As I said, people who don't really have the knowledge to know any
better bring up all manner of possible explanations, trying to say
that climate scientists haven't got it right. Not much different than
bringing up witches or Loki as an explanation. To them, it sounds
just fine. Better informed, they would change their minds.

Need to bone up on elementary math, to start, and maybe also do some
study. It won't necessarily solve any of your problems, but it may
help you do a sanity check on your conjurations.

Jon

As you repeated yourself despite saying you wouldn't and did not
respond to the substance of my post I conclude you could not fault my
logic.

Why should I bother responding to any of your _new_ logic if you can't
even deal with your own _old_ logic?

Take a crack at your own comments and see how they hold up, for once.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you might even allow yourself to believe in the
easter bunny.

Jon

So you can't cope with the fact that the peak annual global
temperature was 11 years ago with a +0.5C anomaly.

This has almost halved to +0.3C since then despite CO2 rising from 368
ppmv to 384ppmv.

Data from the Hadley Centre:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual

How many more years of falling temperature will it take to convince
you the science is wrong?

I use ISI JCR journal articles, not you or your opinions. Why should
I care about what you say?

But I insist that before I take a single step in any direction you
point, that you first take a crack at your own earlier comments and
see how they hold up. Do some of your own work. Even you should know
better than to completely walk away from your own statements. In the
meantime, I'll probably just keep reminding you if I bother at all.

Jon

It is a religion with you

If it's not in the bible (ISI JCR) then it's not true.

When you must hide in a dark corner of superstition and call ISI JCR
rated journals biblical, it pretty much defines you -- not me. Science
is indistinguishable from religion by those sufficiently ignorant of
it. You are just unable to discern, which is your problem not mine.

If you won't look at the facts then there is no hope for you.

But that's _your_ problem, not time. You are just projecting your own
flaws. I do, you don't.

Worse, you won't even attempt to evaluate your own idiotic comments
and defend them. Which is a discerning earmark of a crackpot. Go
back and attempt to evaluate your own earlier silly point, for once.
If you can't even do that, I've no idea why anyone should care what
you say.

Jon

A back of the fag packet calculation shows a 1000 metre drop in the
tropopause will reduce the surface area of the troposhere by about
0.015%. Small but not negligable when you consider that the
temperature anomaly peaked at about 0.15%.

At the moment I haven't found data on variation of tropopause or
stratopause heights with time. So I haven't a clue if 1000 metres is a
reasonable starting point.

This is the part you need to track down, first. You proposed the idea
without a clue in hand. Now it is time to pony up and find out what
the data says is likely, or else find well-understood theory that you
argue may apply here and apply it to this circumstance (deduce to it
cases, in other words.) Then go back and rework your figures and
expose the calculations you used to view.

Jon

I don't expect to find useful data. After all the tropopause varies
dramatically with latitude so unless there is some global satellite
data for it then any figure is pretty meaningless. However if I do
find the information I'll let you know.

No one said such things are easy. In fact, this is what is often
meant by the word "research" and why it costs money. I understand
that it may be difficult.

It's what climate _researchers_ do. Work for their living. And it is
complex work that will surprise you in the breadth and depth required
for useful mastery. If you ever doubt it, just get a copy (I have one
here that I'm wading through now) of the textbook called "Atmospheric
and Oceanic Fluid Dynamics: Fundamentals and Large-Scale Circulation"
by Geoffrey K Vallis, 2006.

Jon

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

No, she didn't write it. Some time ago she was talking about the way
some genetically challenged people (not the Fox2p gene, which affects
speech production) have trouble with complicated sentence structures,
so I tested you with a sentence containing an inferred object, and it
seems that you couldn't parse it.

I may - of course - have misunderstood what she was saying, but I do
seem to have come up with a sentence that your brain isn't equipped to
parse - your push-down stack would seem to be inadequate.

---
The trouble doesn't lie in my inability to parse the sentence, it lies
in your inability to have constructed it properly in the first place and
then in pretending that there's hidden meaning there.

Now, since you've blundered onto that little dodge, I'm sure you'll
start claiming that all of your linguistic "errors" are tests.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

No, she didn't write it. Some time ago she was talking about the way
some genetically challenged people (not the Fox2p gene, which affects
speech production)

---
"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it." seems to be something someone with the
genetic challenge you refer to might say, yes?

JF

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:49:33 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 14, 3:07 am, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

No, she didn't write it. Some time ago she was talking about the way
some genetically challenged people (not the Fox2p gene, which affects
speech production) have trouble with complicated sentence structures,
so I tested you with a sentence containing an inferred object, and it
seems that you couldn't parse it.

I may - of course - have misunderstood what she was saying, but I do
seem to have come up with a sentence that your brain isn't equipped to
parse - your push-down stack would seem to be inadequate.

Can you reference an article on this subject?  Ask her if she might be
willing to provide a pointer?  Sounds helpful in understanding some
folks.

Sorry. I can't provide a reference - the work has yet to be published.

If you remember, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know when and if it
is.

Thanks,
Jon

 

On Mar 14, 3:07 am, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

No, she didn't write it. Some time ago she was talking about the way
some genetically challenged people (not the Fox2p gene, which affects
speech production) have trouble with complicated sentence structures,
so I tested you with a sentence containing an inferred object, and it
seems that you couldn't parse it.

I may - of course - have misunderstood what she was saying, but I do
seem to have come up with a sentence that your brain isn't equipped to
parse - your push-down stack would seem to be inadequate.

Can you reference an article on this subject?  Ask her if she might be
willing to provide a pointer?  Sounds helpful in understanding some
folks.

Sorry. I can't provide a reference - the work has yet to be published.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Mar 14, 12:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:50:06 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

I confess to have exploited my wife's expertise to set a trap for the
linguistically crippled. It was unkind of me, but the temptation was
overwhelming.

---
If:

"It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that you seem to be in
any way equipped to earn it."

was penned by your wife as an attempt of a trap of some kind, then, poor
dear, she's as linguistically challenged as you are.

No, she didn't write it. Some time ago she was talking about the way
some genetically challenged people (not the Fox2p gene, which affects
speech production) have trouble with complicated sentence structures,
so I tested you with a sentence containing an inferred object, and it
seems that you couldn't parse it.

I may - of course - have misunderstood what she was saying, but I do
seem to have come up with a sentence that your brain isn't equipped to
parse - your push-down stack would seem to be inadequate.

---
The trouble doesn't lie in my inability to parse the sentence,

Actually, it is.

it lies in your inability to have constructed it properly in the first place

Since is was explicitly constructed to expose your linguistic
deficiencies, and did exactly what I hoped it would do, I do seem to
have been able to do what I intended.

and then in pretending that there's hidden meaning there.

The sentence would convey two ideas to the linguistically competent.

One is obvious - I acknowledge that you don't need my good opinion.

The second is a parenthetical observation that you aren't in any way
equipped to earn my good opinion - the "it" at the end of the
sentence, refers back to the phrase "my good opinion" in the first
clause, as would be obvious to anybody with normal syntactic skills.

Now, since you've blundered onto that little dodge, I'm sure you'll
start claiming that all of your linguistic "errors" are tests.

Most of my linguistic errors are perfectly ordinary, and entirely
unintentional "errors of action" - also known as typos.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen